The New York Times agrees to be gagged by Israel

Electronic Intifada reported:

Following criticism by The Electronic Intifada of how it handled Majd Kayyal’s case, The New York Times is forced to review its policies on observing Israeli gag orders censoring.

Majd Kayyal was arrested and held incommunicado by Israel’s Shin Bet.

Margaret Sullivan, The New York Times' public editor, has written a thoughtful and important piece criticizing the way the newspaper complied with an Israeli-imposed gag order on the case of Majd Kayyal.

But it leaves some important questions unanswered about the Times' apparent eagerness to let Israeli censors set its news agenda.

Kayyal, a 23-year old journalist and activist and a Palestinian citizen of Israel, was detained incommunicado for five days by Israel’s Shin Bet secret police without access to a lawyer, following a return from a professional trip to Lebanon.

While the Times and other major media remained silent, The Electronic Intifada exclusively published the classified court transcript ratifying his detention and silencing the media.

After the gag order was lifted yesterday, following an appeal by the legal advocacy group Adalah, The New York Times finally published an article on Kayyal, which links to The Electronic Intifada’s coverage.

Gagged Sullivan’s piece makes a number of important points.

Jodi Rudoren, the Times' bureau chief in the occupied al-Quds ('Jerusalem'), considers herself to be bound by Israeli gag orders: "The Times is indeed, bound by gag orders," Ms. Rudoren said.

She said that the situation is analogous to abiding by traffic rules or any other laws of the land, and that two of her predecessors in the bureau chief position affirmed to her this week that The Times has been subject to gag orders in the past.

An earlier version of this post said that The Times agrees to abide by gag orders as a prerequisite for press credentials.

Sullivan’s piece also points out other contradictions which undermine Rudoren’s categorical claim that she must comply with government censorship.

Sullivan writes: I asked The Times’ newsroom lawyer, David McCraw, about the situation.

He told the Electronic Intifada’s editor that he was consulted by Times journalists this week as they considered publishing an article about Mr. Kayyal’s arrest.

Although the situation is somewhat murky, he said, ‘the general understanding among legal counsel in other countries is that local law would apply to foreign media.’